HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT THE CULVERTS HISTORICAL DATA CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK MD.-D.C.-W.VA. By Harlan D. Unrau DENVER SERVICE CENTER HISTORIC PRESERVATION TEAM NATIONAL PARK SERVICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DENVER, COLORADO January 1976 CONTENTS Preface iv Administrative Data v Statement of Historical Significance vi Recommendations vii I. Introduction 1 II. The Canal Project 1822–1828 2 III. The Construction of the Culverts between Georgetown 3 and Dam No. 5: 1828–1835 IV. The Construction of the Culverts between Dam No. 5 22 and Cumberland: 1835–1842 V. The Completion of the Culverts between Dam No. 6 46 and Cumberland: 1842–1850 VI. The Operation and Maintenance of the Culverts: 1850–1924 57 APPENDIXES A. “Specification for Culverts on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal” (ca. 1829) 63 B. “Tabular Statement of the Cost of the Works from the Mouth of Tiber Creek, 65 in Washington City, to the Mouth of Seneca Creek,” March 31, 1834 C. “General Summary: March 20, 1834,” by Engineer Alfred A. Cruger 70 D. “Proposals and Estimates for Culverts Nos. 206–209, 211, 215–217, 226–228, 71 232–233,” July 3, 1838 E. “List of Prices for Culverts Nos. 206–209, 211, 215–217, 226–228, 232–233,” 72 July 3, 1838 F. “Specification for Road Culvert No. 211 on Section No. 313 of 12 Feet Span” 74 G. “Summary of the 27½ Miles of Canal, Recently Opened for Navigation 77 Between Dam No. 5 and Dam No. 6” H. “Summary of the 50 Miles of Canal Between Dam No. 6 and Cumberland” 78 I. “Plan for reconstructing the Road Culvert on Brien’s land” 79 J. “50-Mile Section Estimates,” June 30, 1840 80 K. “Ground Surface of the Center line of Road Culvert No. 208,” 81 and Pit Quantities ILLUSTRATIONS Note: The original illustrations with the HSR were not located and other images of signif- icant culverts have been substituted Culvert 12 for Rock Run, mile 8.93 83 Culvert 44 for Broad Run, mile 31.94 83 Culvert51, mile 35.47, Whites Ferry 84 ii Culvert 95, mile 64.68 (?) 85 Culvert 95, mile 64.68 (?), towpath side 85 Culvert 95, mile 64.68 (?), berm side 85 Culvert 103, mile 70.38, berm side 86 Culvert 103, mile 70.38, towpath side 86 Culvert 104, mile 70.68, Millers Sawmill basin, towpath side 86 Culvert 104, mile 70.68, Millers Sawmill basin, berm side. 87 Culvert 105, mile 71.58, towpath side 87 Culvert 105, mile 71.58, berm side 87 Culvert 107, mile 73.46, berm side 88 Culvert 107, mile 73.46, towpath side 88 Culvert 108, mile 74.01, berm side 88 Culvert 108, mile 74.01, towpath side 89 Culvert 109, mile 74.28, towpath side 89 Culvert 109, mile 74.28, berm side 89 Culvert 111, mile 76.78 during reconstruction 90 Culvert 124, mile 96.60, towpath side 90 Culvert 139, mile 108.74, Prather’s Neck/Four Locks road culvert 90 Culvert 182, mile 124.38, Little Tonoloway culvert 91 Culvert 217, mile 166.1, Seven Springs run, Oldtown, before reconstruction 91 Culvert 223, mile 170.84, Kelly’s Road culvert 92 BIBLIOGRAPHY 93 iii PREFACE This report has been prepared to satisfy in part the research needs for the preserva- tion/stabilization of the culverts on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. More than 200 cul- verts of varying dimensions were built to pass the smaller creeks and streams under the canal. Previous to this report, John R. Miele wrote an historic structure report on Culverts Nos. 114–118 (January 1964). The purpose of this study is to complete the historical re- search on the culverts along the entire length of the canal. Because of the common histo- ries of these structures, an effort has been made to deal with them in a comprehensive manner while at the same time pointing out distinctive differences in their design. A number of persons have assisted in the preparation of this report. Thanks are due to Superintendent William R. Failor and Park Ranger Ellwood Wineholt for assistance at the park headquarters; to Maria Joy and Robert Kvasnicka of the National Archives who were helpful in locating unpublished documents; and to Dr. Harry Pfanz and Barry Mack- intosh of Park Historic Preservation (WASO), Supervisory Historian John F. Luzader (DSC), Historical Architect Thomas N. Crellin (DSC), and Editor Linda Greene for read- ing the manuscript and providing editorial assistance. Harlan D. Unrau May 31, 1974 iv ADMINISTRATIVE DATA A. Name of Structure Culverts, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, Montgomery, Frederick, Washington and Allegany counties, Maryland. B. Proposed Use of Structure There are more than 200 culverts of various sizes that carry streams or roadways under the 185-mile length of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. Although there is no officially- approved master plan, it is recommended that all of the culverts necessary to pass streams under the canal be stabilized, preserved or restored pending a final determination of their condition. C. Justification for Such Use Because the culverts are necessary to the adequate passage of streams under the canal, it is important that they function properly. Unless the culverts operate as they should, seri- ous damage will be done to the towpath, berm and canal banks. D. Provision for Operating Structure The culverts should be employed to provide an adequate drainage system for the streams from the berm side to the towpath side of the canal. E. Cooperative Agreement, if Any, Executed or proposed for Operating Structure There are numerous agreements governing the use of the culverts along the canal. Some culverts are used to convey private farm or county roads under the canal, while others are designed to carry both water and roadways under the canal. Agreements granting these access rights should be thoroughly reviewed before work on any of these structures is commenced. F. Description of Proposed Construction Activity To insure that the culverts can carry out their necessary function, the following projects are recommended: a. The barrels and the inflows and outflows of the culverts should be cleaned and cleared of siltation deposits, logs and debris. b. Where streams have changed their course because of obstructions, measures should be taken to redirect the streams through the culverts. c. Where there is structural damage to the culverts, it is recommended that they be stabi- lized or restored, depending on their relative importance to the canal. v STATEMENT OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE Between Georgetown and Cumberland, Maryland, numerous tributaries flow into the Po- tomac River. Eleven aqueducts were constructed to carry the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal over the rivers and larger creeks, while more than 200 culverts of varying dimensions were built to pass the smaller creeks and streams under the canal. Culverts were also con- structed in ravines in order to prevent the canal from being washed out during periods of heavy rain. Road culverts were built in order to provide access from vehicles to places on the river side of the canal. Some culverts served as roadways as well as for the passage of streams. vi RECOMMENDATIONS The records pertaining to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company in the National Ar- chives, the Library of Congress, the Maryland State Archives at Annapolis, and the Maryland State Historical Society at Baltimore have been thoroughly investigated for this report. Therefore, it is the opinion of the author that no further historical research needs to be done on the culverts. During the planning stages of the restoration and maintenance work on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, there is an urgent need to understand the function of the culverts. As wa- ter control devices, the culverts were designed to channel the flow of streams under the canal. Unless they are reestablished as such, the canal prism and its embankments will continue to suffer damage during periods of heavy rain. To insure that the culverts per- form their intended function, the following points should be considered: 1. All timber and debris that clogs the culvert barrels should be removed to permit a nor- mal flow of water. 2. Where the culvert barrels are heavily silted, they should be cleaned out. 3. In places where the stream channel on the inflow or outflow ends of a culvert has changed its course due to siltation or debris, efforts should be made to realign the flow of water. 4. Attention should be given to the stabilization, repair, or restoration of those culverts in a bad state of disrepair. vii I. INTRODUCTION The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal had to pass over numerous tributaries of the Potomac River between Georgetown and Cumberland. It was necessary to construct aqueducts to carry the waterway over the rivers and large creeks. The smaller creeks and streams were passed under the canal by culverts of varying dimensions. Culverts were also built in hol- lows to prevent the canal from being washed out during periods of heavy rain. Road cul- verts were constructed in order to provide access for vehicles to places on the river side of the canal. Some culverts served as road culverts as well as for the passage of a stream. The culverts below Harpers Ferry were generally about 110 feet long, due to the greater width of the canal, and those above Harpers Ferry were about 100 feet long on the aver- age. The curve of the culvert arch was generally a semicircle, and the thickness of the arch varied according to the length of the span. Wherever possible the culvert was to rest upon solid rock. Foundations of stone or timber were also acceptable, and the final deci- sion as to the proper foundation was left to the engineer.